Manifest failure

[unixronin]

Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it.

That raving, radical outpost of irresponsible hippie lunacy, The Economist, suggests that after a century of ever-worsening failure in the War on Some Drugs, it just might be a good idea to try something else.

Comments

[laurarey.livejournal.com]

I'm curious if you agree with their approach or would tweak it at all. Yes, I did detect the sarcasm in your posting... :) However, you typically think issues out so thoroughly that I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of their solution.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

I am not unixronin, of course, so I'm certainly not the opinion you wanted. That said, I think this is a non–Swiftian modest proposal. Let's start small and decriminalize personal possession of marijuana at the federal level. If states want to criminalize personal possession, let them; just tell them that federal district attorneys will not be prosecuting it, will not be cooperating with it, and should not be bothered with it.

Some states will decriminalize. Others won't. In two years, let's look at what the decriminalization experiment has achieved. If it looks good, then let's repeal personal possession laws and look at where we go from there.

When reasonable people say "legalize drugs," other reasonable people scream, "but that's such a huge dramatic change, what if we're wrong?!" That's why I advocate slow, graduated drug legalization. If you say "let's stop wasting tax money going after 19-year-old stoners who want to sit down, smoke a doobie and bake some cookies," well, people tend to take that a bit better.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I just realized, while clearing out old mail, that I intended to get back to this thread and reply, and somehow never did. There's just been too much going on to cope with everything all at once.

I think the federal-level decriminalization step is a good one. However, I question whether it's enough of a step to show a clear enough impact to prevent the government from being able to dismiss it as a failure — which, given half a chance, they will, even if it's a success. There are strong arguments that marijuana is less harmful overall to society than alcohol. Alcohol abusers get drunk and drive, get drunk and start brawls, get drunk and beat up the wife, get drunk and sleep around and bring home STDs, get drunk and do a whole lot of pretty unwise things. Marijuana users, when they get stoned, are far more likely to get the munchies and make a huge pile of nachos, or just sit in the corner and giggle.

But ... alcohol abusers also get drunk and spend a whole lot of money. Alcohol helps fuel huge amounts of casino spending, for example.

In general, I think the Economist has hit the nail on the head here. Prohibition was the best thing that ever happened to organized crime in the US; they were the only segment of society that benefited from it in the long term. The War On Some Drugs, as it's widely known in certain circles, has eroded constitutional rights, militarized police forces, given us no-knock raids and civil forfeiture, and made the drug trade massively more profitable by driving prices up. The government likes to talk about drug cartels in Colombia as the enemy on this front ... but who's propping up the drug cartels? Well, honestly, we are. By ensuring that they have no competition, and yet at the same time ensuring that their prices and profits remain high. We're filling prisons with people convicted of minor drug offenses, so the prisons run out of room and more serious offenders go free early. The total cost to society of thw War on Drugs is staggering — and, the longer the government fails to "win" it, the more money they throw at the problem. It's throwing good money after bad.

Drug prohibition, like global thermonuclear war, "is a very strange game, Dr. Falken. The only way to win is not to play."